On Wednesday,
delegates convened in morning and afternoon plenary sessions to consider
presentations on country experiences and lessons learned in African countries.
In the afternoon, Working Group I discussed the social and cultural aspects of
forests, while Working Group II monitoring, assessment and reporting (MAR).

PLENARY

COUNTRY
EXPERIENCES: AFRICA DAY: UNFF-4 Chair Yuriy Isakov
(Russian Federation) explained that the outcomes of “Africa Day” will contribute
to the high-level segment of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in
2004. Pekka Patosaari, Coordinator and Head of the UNFF Secretariat, emphasized
the role of regional cooperation, highlighting recent forest-related
initiatives. Moderator Judith Mbula Bahemuka (Kenya) explained that Africa Day
aims to: highlight the role of forests in rural development and poverty
alleviation in Africa; share knowledge and lessons learned; strengthen
sustainable forest management (SFM) partnerships; and promote stronger African
participation in the UNFF process.

Grégoire Nkeoua,
Ministry of Forestry and Environment for the Republic of Congo, noted the
challenges facing SFM implementation in the Congo Basin are environmental
preservation, cross-sectoral policy convergence, and the mobilization of
resources. He said the goals of the Convergence Plan for Congo Basin Regional
Action are: policy harmonization and common action, forest inventories,
biodiversity conservation and capacity strengthening. He concluded that
financing for the plan is the key to its success and noted the contribution of
the Congo Basin Partnership and new market opportunities provided by carbon
sequestration.

Ruth Mubiru,
Uganda Women Tree Planting Movement, emphasized the contributions of forests and
tree planting to African women’s livelihoods. Noting the lack of land tenure
for, and decision-making power of, women, she called for their involvement in
national planning, and for organizing an UNFF-sponsored meeting on women and
tree planting.

Tobias Takavarasha,
New Partnership for Africa’s Development, reported on its Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Programme Action Plan, which includes elements on forestry,
fisheries and wildlife. He explained that increasing capacity building would
improve food security and equitable wealth distribution, and called for the
reprioritization of agriculture, linking the Millenium Development Goal (MDG) on
hunger and poverty reduction to the IPF/IFF proposals for action, and creating
enabling environments for the private sector and smallhold farmers.

Frank Kufakwandi,
African Development Bank, discussed how economic problems hinder SFM in Africa,
and said community and private sector involvement in forest management is
minimal. Noting the lack of political commitment and concrete action on the
ground, he called for integrating SFM and poverty reduction strategies, and
addressing land tenure, environmental governance and the empowerment of women.

Samuel Nguiffo,
Center for Environment and Development, presented on illegal forestry activities
and the challenges of forest law enforcement in Cameroon. Noting that the
responsibility to address illegal logging rests with governments, donors and
forest concession holders, he said partial solutions to illegal logging include:
thinking about the problem on a regional and ecosystem scale; deploying
independent regionally-based observers; and applying persuasive sanctions.

Yemi Katerere,
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) said international processes
do not serve African interests, and that unconditional aid is scarce. He called
for, inter alia: adopting a rights-based approach and devolving benefits
to those managing the forests; simplifying and enforcing regulations;
integrating forestry into other sectors; improving market access and the free
mobility of people; generating policy relevant research; and targeting capacity
building.

In the ensuing
discussion, MALAWI, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, called for further donor
support for increased African participation in UNFF. TANZANIA stressed the
importance of decentralization, capacity building, and increased private
investment and donor assistance. UGANDA listed its efforts to involve
disadvantaged groups in decision making, and said improved market access can
help finance SFM. Noting that forests are rarely a national priority, GAMBIA
said forestry could attract investment if integrated with other sectors.
MADAGASCAR underscored the importance of evaluating ecological services of
forests. SENEGAL stressed the need to balance agriculture and forests and, with
NIGERIA, stressed the importance of adequately assessing the contribution of the
forest sector to the national economy. ALGERIA described its national
initiatives, such as a national forest registry, work on land improvement, and
reforestation to prevent erosion and rural depopulation. The CENTRAL AFRICAN
REPUBLIC called for good governance in the management of natural resources,
capacity building for rural communities and trans-boundary efforts to combat
poaching. NIGERIA called for studies to evaluate the contribution of the forest
sector to the GDP. BENIN requested UNFF to address concerns related to forest
law enforcement. The DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO highlighted a lack of
resources, data and impact studies, and said armed conflicts over resource
control pose a challenge for SFM. BURKINA FASO recommended participatory
management models as a way to balance local needs with SFM. SOUTH AFRICA
stressed the linkage between poverty and forests and the role of regional and
sub-regional institutions in mobilizing implementation capacity.

IRELAND, on behalf
of the EU, stressed the importance of the African Forest Law Enforcement and
Governance process. INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR RESEARCH IN AGROFORESTRY said
forest issues are too broad to be subsumed in other sectors and identified lack
of capacity as the principal obstacle to African SFM. GERMANY, with FRANCE,
commended the Congo Basin Partnership, and highlighted the importance of
long-term donors support in the region. CANADA listed changes in its
international development policy, including increases to its official
development assistance (ODA) and untied non-food aid, and said its recent
elimination of tariffs and quotas on imports from least developed country
benefits African countries. The US urged delegates to respond to the substantive
proposals and requested the UNFF Secretariat to find a better format for
dialogue and ways to integrate the IPF/IFF proposals for action into the MDGs.

ECUADOR outlined
its achievements in reforestation and local community involvement in forest
management. INDONESIA noted the common problems of developing countries and
committed to developing cooperation and partnerships. CHINA reported on women’s
involvement in reforestation and combating desertification and called for an
international conference on the participation of women in forest management.
NORWAY noted a seminar on gender and forestry to be held in Tanzania in August
2004.

In response,
panelists reiterated, inter alia: the need to not consider forestry under
agriculture; the importance of involving women in the forestry sector and
related forest policy and decision making processes; the value of information
and training; the link between forestry, poverty reduction and the MDGs; the
impact of fiscal policy on forestry; and that effectively addressing illegal
logging may attract donor support. Panelists also said that there is little
awareness of forests’ role in the overall economy, and that structural
adjustment forces governments to give priority to issues other than forests.

WORKING GROUP I

Pekka Patosaari,
UNFF, thanked CIFOR for assisting the preparation of the report on social and
cultural aspects of forests (E/CN.18/2004/8). Yemi Katetere, CIFOR, presented
the discussion points, including: mainstreaming of social and cultural aspects
of forests in NFPs and SFM strategies; promoting fair and equitable
benefit-sharing; documenting the contribution of forests to poverty reduction;
adopting social impact assessment methodologies; and considering lessons learned
on decentralization and the devolution of authority.

KOREA, UNITED
KINGDOM, and MALAYSIA shared their national experiences with stakeholder
involvement. Welcoming the report, IRELAND, on behalf of the EU, Bulgaria,
Romania and Turkey, suggested, inter alia: referring to the UN
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the access and
benefit-sharing (ABS) work of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);
developing educational initiatives; and emphasizing forests’ contribution to
poverty reduction in order to allocate national resources and donor assistance
towards SFM. INDONESIA noted the cultural impacts of decentralization, and
recommended fair and equitable benefit-sharing and the development of an
international regime on ABS under the CBD. MALAYSIA recommended that
international cooperation take into account national sovereignty and said they
are addressing land tenure of indigenous peoples and protect it where
appropriate. SWITZERLAND described its experiences with decentralization and
overcoming initial conflicts through transparency, capacity building and
creating appropriate institutional frameworks. JAPAN warned that social
conflicts can inhibit SFM. NEW ZEALAND stressed the importance of local
involvement in combating illegal logging and reminded financial benefits from
local forest management take time to materialize. She recommended that UNFF
identify areas in CBDï¿½s current work on ABS where UNFF could add value, and work
in collaboration with the CBD to avoid the duplication of efforts.

WORKING GROUP II

Peter Holmgren,
FAO, presented the report on MAR (E/CN.18/2004/10). He noted that the 2005
global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA 2005) under preparation by FAO is a
country-driven process. He underscored that although information is still
missing and that national capacity building is needed, there has been progress
on national forest assessments, streamlining and reporting, and harmonization of
definitions. Identifying points for discussion, he suggested that CPF members
strengthen MAR capacity building and further develop information reporting
frameworks, and that UNFF provide guidance to international bodies.

Mike Dudley,
United Kingdom Forestry Commission, presented the report of the Ad Hoc
Expert Group on MAR (AHEG MAR), and listed the groupï¿½s recommendations,
including that: countries make better use of existing resources for MAR and
strengthen criteria and indicators processes; international organizations
continue work on streamlining reporting requirements; and UNFF review and
enhance the FRA 2005, improve ways for collecting country information for
UNFF-5, and expand the sharing of country experiences at UNFF-5 through side
events and panel discussions.

A number of
countries underscored the crucial role of MAR in achieving SFM. ARGENTINA
underscored the need for political will, resources and country capacity for data
collection, and said harmonization of definitions and terms should take into
account various types of forest covers. AUSTRALIA stressed the importance of
streamlining reporting procedures, and, supported by NEW ZEALAND, suggested
allowing countries to limit their implementation reports to selected clusters of
IPF/IFF proposals for action. IRELAND, on behalf of the EU, supported the
harmonization of terminology and continued enhancement of FRA 2005. JAPAN
proposed that countries make reports available on the Internet even if they are
not translated or do not pertain to the IPF/IFF proposals for action. MALAYSIA
outlined its national MAR program. Noting that only 30 countries have reported
on progress, NEW ZEALAND expressed concern that the 2005 review may flounder
without sufficient national reports. He said that FRA 2005 should be used to
assess progress toward SFM.The FAO announced its regional forestry
commissions have started discussions on implementation and monitoring of
progress.

IN THE CORRIDORS

While many found
Africa Day to be very beneficial insofar as it brought together the donor
community and several key African policy makers, there can be little doubt that
the real issue occupying the minds of many at UNFF-4 has been UNFF-5 and beyond.
Some have said that the decade old debate on the merits and pitfalls of a forest
convention has shifted slightly. As such, some delegates have said that the
debate now seems to be more a ï¿½corridorï¿½ conversation about what stakeholders
are looking to obtain from the post-UNFF arrangement, than it is a rehashing of
well-worn arguments. Many players seem to be in agreement that UNFF is not
delivering on its stated aims and propose this as the point from which
discussions concerning the future of international forest policy should begin.

THINGS TO
LOOK FOR TODAY

WORKING
GROUP I: Delegates will meet in Salle XVIII from 10:00
am ï¿½ 1:00 pm to begin deliberations on forest-related scientific knowledge.

WORKING
GROUP II: Delegates will meet in Salle XVII from 10:00
am ï¿½ 1:00 pm to continue statements on MAR and to discuss criteria and
indicators for SFM.

PLENARY:
Delegates will convene in Plenary in Salle XVIII from 3:00 pm ï¿½ 6:00 pm to
discuss capacity building in the annual Multi-stakeholder Dialogue.

This issue of
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin ï¿½
enb@iisd.org is written
and edited by Andrew Baldwin
andrew@iisd.org;
Radoslav Dimitrov, Ph.D.
rado@iisd.org; Marï¿½a
Gutiï¿½rrez
maria@iisd.org; Tamilla
Gaynutdinova
tamilla@iisd.org; and
Nicole Schabus
nicole@iisd.org. The
Digital Editor is Leslie
Paas
leslie@iisd.org. The
Editor is Pamela S. Chasek,
Ph.D.
pam@iisd.org and the
Director of IISD Reporting
Services is Langston James "Kimo"
Goree VI
kimo@iisd.org. The
Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through
the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), and the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. General
Support for the Bulletin
during 2004 is provided by
the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP),
the Government of Australia,
Austrian Federal Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water
Management, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Sweden, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Norway,
Swan International, the
Japanese Ministry of
Environment (through the
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies -
IGES) and the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry (through the
Global Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin in
French has been provided by
the International
Organization of the
Francophonie (IOF) and the
French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The opinions
expressed in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect
the views of IISD or other
donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at
kimo@iisd.org,
+1-212-644-0217 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA.